W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: Webfont compression

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:11:14 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF297EC98@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: <www-font@w3.org>
Hello John,

On Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:41 PM John Hudson wrote:
> 
> Vladimir wrote:
> 
> > I made a promise on this list on behalf of Monotype Imaging to offer
> > unrestricted, GPL-compatible, royalty-free license for MTX
> compression
> > technology and the use of patents associated with it.
> 
> Can you explain what you mean by 'GPL-compatible', please? Some
> colleagues were expressing doubt that GPL would be suitable for the
> kind
> of license that would enable flexible use of MTX, i.e. without putting
> GPL requirements onto developers implementing MTX in their software.
It
> has been suggested that something like an MIT license would be better.
> But perhaps by 'GPL-compatible' you don't mean GPL itself, but only
> something that ensures that the license is unrestricted and royalty-
> free.
> 

This is exactly what I mean by saying that license will be
"GPL-compatible". Mozilla stated that the "field of use restriction"
allowed by W3C patent license is a blocking issue for them, and Monotype
has agreed not to invoke this restriction and provide an unrestricted
royalty-free license if MTX technology is adopted as a part of W3C
Recommendation.

> I'm sure there are plenty of people more qualified than me to advise
on
> the best license model, but I thought I would mention this to ensure
> that there is no misunderstanding about the commitment you have made.
> 

Thank you, I understand your concerns. Monotype will work with all
interested parties to come up with the license that would satisfy all
parties involved.

> > The offer is
> > unequivocal, and is contingent only on the adoption of the
technology
> as
> > part of a web font solution (any solution, whether EOT or its
> > derivative, or any future webfont solution).
> 
> What does this contingency look like? What is necessary to satisfy
this
> condition? This is this is the aspect that seems vague to me and
> perhaps
> to others, and might give the impression to some that Monotype's
> commitment is conditional on something that has not be adequately
> defined.
> 

Monotype's commitment is part of our joint submission of EOT to W3C [1],
and is made according to the W3C patent policy requirements [2].

> It could be argued that MTX technology is *already* 'part of a web
font
> solution' in being implemented in EOT. Since that web font solution
> isn't going to go away, and may yet expand to support in other
> browsers,
> does that meet the condition for releasing MTX as you describe? If
not,
> what is the condition? A web font solution embraced and codified by
the
> W3C? A web font solution that to which unspecified number of browsers
> commit?
> 

As I explained in my previous email to Richard, the technology shall be
adopted as a part of a W3C Recommendation to satisfy the condition for
royalty-free patent license. This is standard condition for any W3C
technology submission.

As part of existing EOT solution, the technology is available for any
interested party (be it a browser or a tool vendor) but the license
conditions would have to be negotiated. Until the technology is adopted
as part of W3C Recommendation, Monotype is under no obligation to offer
royalty-free license, it would be solely our own decision. (E.g.
Microsoft negotiated their own license for MTX compression, any browser
vendor who is interested in supporting EOT can do the same).

Regards,
Vladimir

[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/
[2]
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements

 
> John Hudson
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 06:11:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT